Gujarat High Court
FA/3334/2000 of SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs GOBERBHAI PUNJABHAI SENMA on 13 December 2000
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No 3333 of 2000 to FIRST APPEALNo 3339 of 2000 Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.C.PATEL ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES to see the judgements?
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST APPEAL No 3333 of 2000
to
FIRST APPEALNo 3339 of 2000
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT
and
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.C.PATEL
============================================================
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES
to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO
of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO
-------------------------------------------------------------- SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
Versus
MAFAJI VIRAJI THAKOR
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
MR ABHIJIT JOSHI And MS. SD PANDIT for appellants MR AJ PATEL for respondents-original claiments
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT
and
MR.JUSTICE M.C.PATEL
ORAL JUDGEMENT
(Per : MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT)
1. These are appeals filed by the State under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with section 96 CPC, challenging the common judgement and awards passed by the Reference Court under section 18 of the said Act.
2. The lands in question were acquired for the Narmada Canal project and were situated in village Vansol, Taluka Kadi. The section 4 notification was issued on 28th May 1990.
3. The original claimants-land holders not having accepted the award of Land Acquisition officer, had preferred references under section 18 of the said Act which came to be decided by the Reference Court, who determined the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.32.70 per square meter.
4. As a result of the hearing and discussion and perusal of the evidentiary material on record, our attention has been drawn to the fact that the lands from the same village had been acquired for the same project and where the section 4 notification was dated only 4 days earlier i.e. on 24th May 1990, whereby the Reference Court had determined the market value of the lands in question under section 18 of the said Act at the same figure viz. Rs.32.70 per square meter. That judgement and awards of the Reference Court were challenged by these very same appellants by way of Fppirst Appeal Nos.504/2000 to 515/2000 which were heard and decided on merits by an earlier Bench (Coram: J.M. Panchal and M.C. Patel JJ.) by its judgement and order dated 7th September 2000. That Bench in the said decision appreciated the judgement and awards on merits with reference to the evidentiary material on record, and while dismissing the said appeals with costs, confirmed the market value determined by the Reference Court at Rs.32.70 per square meter.
5. Thus, the market value determined by the Reference Court in the instant appeals is amply justified in view of the aforesaid decision.
6. No reason is pointed out to us as to why the aforesaid decision would not apply in the instant group of appeals. These appeals are, therefore, summarily dismissed.
******
*ar*